Vikings Message Board.Com

This tweet is from Alex Marvez of the Sporting News:

Alex Marvez‏@alexmarvez
Source tells @sn_nfl that Kennedy Polamalu expected to be named @vikings new RBs coach

There's a little more here at PFT but Marvez is their source:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... rbs-coach/

I haven't seen anything more official yet.

How much of an impact do these position coaches actually have? You never hear about them other than when someone is hired or fired.

720pete wrote:How much of an impact do these position coaches actually have? You never hear about them other than when someone is hired or fired.

A good one can have considerable impact on player development.

Look no further than our OL for the answer to that question...

mansquatch wrote:Look no further than our OL for the answer to that question...

Absolutely correct.

Let's see if the Vikings can figure that out.

How hard can it be?

"Look for the gap, don't go there, run into numbers your recognize. Stutter step, ideally cut back 2 to 3 times. Then get ready for second down"

From @mattvensel: Report: Vikings to hire Kennedy Polamalu as RBs coach. Continues offensive staff shuffle
http://www.startribune.com/vikings-to-h ... 410834315/

Also, I am assuming that they will probably move Stefanski back to being TE's coach.


Dallas about 3 years ago got a decent running back coach. A good OL helps but he has them running backs putting some yards out.

halfgiz wrote:From @mattvensel: Report: Vikings to hire Kennedy Polamalu as RBs coach. Continues offensive staff shuffle
http://www.startribune.com/vikings-to-h ... 410834315/

Also, I am assuming that they will probably move Stefanski back to being TE's coach.


Dallas about 3 years ago got a decent running back coach. A good OL helps but he has them running backs putting some yards out.

AD's best years were when Eric Bienemy was the RB coach here. I am not sure if that is a coincidence or not but it is worth noting.

With a Defensive minded Head coach I'm expecting the Vikings again to not " Get it" and refuse to do much more than get more Washed out, cast offed , OLine players trying to patch the line up rather than a serious investment Thru FA and the draft. Expect another Defensive draft. Until they seriously invest in the OLINE expect more 500 seasons.

Laserman wrote:With a Defensive minded Head coach I'm expecting the Vikings again to not " Get it" and refuse to do much more than get more Washed out, cast offed , OLine players trying to patch the line up rather than a serious investment Thru FA and the draft. Expect another Defensive draft. Until they seriously invest in the OLINE expect more 500 seasons.

So just because he is defensive minded, he's going to go defense heavy in the offseason?? Good analysis. Do you truly believe he thinks the OL isn't a problem?? Can you honestly sit here and say, Zim thinks the line is good or can get by?? Come on dude.

But since you said "expect a heavy defensive draft, I suppose I'll sit here and wait

Pondering Her Percy wrote: So just because he is defensive minded, he's going to go defense heavy in the offseason?? Good analysis. Do you truly believe he thinks the OL isn't a problem?? Can you honestly sit here and say, Zim thinks the line is good or can get by?? Come on dude.

But since you said "expect a heavy defensive draft, I suppose I'll sit here and wait

I can see the rational for going heavy on defense. Sometimes the return to building on your strengths is a lot greater than the return for building on your weaknesses. A DT, a MLB, a S could go a lot way to solidifying the run defense, and creating more opportunities for big plays.

Its kind of analagous to the 'square peg round hole' Vikings fans have been griping about since Childress was here. You might want to be balanced, but if your line can't run block, you can get better return from just becoming a short passing offense. This team has the potential to be an elite defense with a few improvements. Taking cast offs to repair the line and bolstering the weak spots on defense is a formula with some potential.

fiestavike wrote:
I can see the rational for going heavy on defense. Sometimes the return to building on your strengths is a lot greater than the return for building on your weaknesses. A DT, a MLB, a S could go a lot way to solidifying the run defense, and creating more opportunities for big plays.

Its kind of analagous to the 'square peg round hole' Vikings fans have been griping about since Childress was here. You might want to be balanced, but if your line can't run block, you can get better return from just becoming a short passing offense. This team has the potential to be an elite defense with a few improvements. Taking cast offs to repair the line and bolstering the weak spots on defense is a formula with some potential.

I see where you're coming from but dont totally agree. As for the top part, we definitely do need another DT next to Linval. I mocked us taking one in the 3rd. We do not need a MLB. We have Kendricks, who IMO, could be the best/most underrated player on this entire defense. As for S, I've been a huge "we need to get a safety to replace Sendejo" guy for years now. However, I will say, he wasnt all that bad this year and he is actually a pretty sure tackler most of the time. He's turning into a product of the system.

MLB and S arent even close to being the problem with our run defense IMO. It's not having a legitimate 3-technique DT. Think about back when we had the Williams tandem. Pat is basically Linval but we have nobody that's Kevin. I think Floyd is similar to that when he's in there but that isnt very often. Floyd was a beast vs. Seattle last year in the playoffs. I think you do with Floyd what we should do with Kalil this year. See if we can sign him on the cheap when his contract is up next year. I think it's stupid to cut him this year. He's the type of guy that would go somewhere else and end up burning us. The guy is good. Nobody wanted to give Rudy a chance except me and a few others on here when he was always hurt and now look at him. Floyd is the exact same way.

As for your second paragraph, this goes back to what Jim said with us having "1/3" of a team and "1/3" of a team cant win a SB. I am all for balance. And we do have one side that can be VERY dominant. But this offense needs to get around the early-mid 20's in total offense at least. I completely disagree with the whole "1/3" thing because there is a team out there right now that is dominant on the offensive side of the ball but 25th on the other side in total defense. Special teams is a wash. As for us, outside of Locke, ours is one of the best in the league IMO. Atlanta is proving that you can go out with "1/3" of a team and contend for a SB. Which is why I don't agree with that assessment one bit. However, I will say we need to get better on the offensive side of the ball in order to give this dominant defense a break and manage the game.

Nobody is saying take castoffs to repair the line and I dont want "castoffs". Maybe one to patch a spot up for now? Sure. But I want young guys and good FA's in here. The Wagners/Zeitlers of the world. Two out of 3 top picks being OL. That's how I would build it.

If I had a choice I would probably go with:

RT- Wagner/Sirles/Rookie pick 1
RG- Warford or Leary/Harris/Rookie pick 2
C- Berger/Easton/Possible rookie pick 2
LG- Boone/Berger/Rookie pick 2
LT- Kalil/Hill/Rookie pick 1

...anyone else, let them walk or cut them. Clemmings, Fusco, Kerin, etc.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:As for your second paragraph, this goes back to what Jim said with us having "1/3" of a team and "1/3" of a team cant win a SB. I am all for balance. And we do have one side that can be VERY dominant. But this offense needs to get around the early-mid 20's in total offense at least. I completely disagree with the whole "1/3" thing because there is a team out there right now that is dominant on the offensive side of the ball but 25th on the other side in total defense. Special teams is a wash. As for us, outside of Locke, ours is one of the best in the league IMO. Atlanta is proving that you can go out with "1/3" of a team and contend for a SB. Which is why I don't agree with that assessment one bit. However, I will say we need to get better on the offensive side of the ball in order to give this dominant defense a break and manage the game.

I literally wrote that "A good defense is 1/3 of a good team." That's it. You projected more onto that statement and I clarified the point later by telling you a good defense isn't enough. Your statements above suggest you believe exactly the same thing! You clearly implied that special teams matter and the phrase "we need to get better on the offensive side of the ball" speaks for itself.

There are 3 phases to the game so logically, being good in one phase means 1/3 of the team is good. I'm honestly not sure why you find that a controversial concept.

A team can be imbalanced and reach or win the Super Bowl. I never suggested otherwise. My point all along was that it's going to take more than a good defense to get the job done. A dominant defense is more than just good but at this point in their development, the Vikes don't have a dominant defense and as you said, they need to get better on offense.

To Fiesta's point: focusing on taking the defense from good to elite has it's merits but I think that's taking the tougher and less likely road to success and I say that because a team's that struggles to score has very little margin for error.

Mothman wrote:
I literally wrote that "A good defense is 1/3 of a good team." That's it. You projected more onto that statement and I clarified the point later by telling you a good defense isn't enough. Your statements above suggest you believe exactly the same thing! You clearly implied that special teams matter and the phrase "we need to get better on the offensive side of the ball" speaks for itself.

There are 3 phases to the game so logically, being good in one phase means 1/3 of the team is good. I'm honestly not sure why you find that a controversial concept.

A team can be imbalanced and reach or win the Super Bowl. I never suggested otherwise. My point all along was that it's going to take more than a good defense to get the job done. A dominant defense is more than just good but at this point in their development, the Vikes don't have a dominant defense and as you said, they need to get better on offense.

To Fiesta's point: focusing on taking the defense from good to elite has it's merits but I think that's taking the tougher and less likely road to success and I say that because a team's that struggles to score has very little margin for error.

Well obviously I'm not going to sit here and say we're all set on offense. Who would?? Of course it needs to get better. But you said 1/3 of a team "simply isnt enough" when that is exactly what is happening right now (Atlanta). No less you followed that up by saying you dont see us contending for a while. So no, I'm not blowing it out of proportion. Atlanta is contending and they are good on one side of the ball. Who's to say we cant if we get this offense into the low-mid 20's in total offense at least?? I'd rather have this defense than Atlanta's offense if I had to choose one. How many games has Atlanta lost the past few years when they've put up 30+ points?? A lot. The defense is a championship caliber defense. Atlanta has the 25th ranked defense. If we can get up to the 25th or better ranked offense next year why couldnt we contend??

If Atlanta can do it there is no reason we cant. And I've said that before and I've yet to get a response. We have the QB, WR's and TE. It's not like we're the Browns and have none of the above. We need to fix a few areas, yeah. But it's not like this offense has 0 talent on it. And what a year to be looking for a RB. Build the OL through FA and the draft, keeping a few of our own and draft a RB and there is no reason this offense couldnt get into the low 20's at least.

Mothman wrote:

I literally wrote that "A good defense is 1/3 of a good team." That's it. You projected more onto that statement and I clarified the point later by telling you a good defense isn't enough. Your statements above suggest you believe exactly the same thing! You clearly implied that special teams matter and the phrase "we need to get better on the offensive side of the ball" speaks for itself.

There are 3 phases to the game so logically, being good in one phase means 1/3 of the team is good. I'm honestly not sure why you find that a controversial concept.

A team can be imbalanced and reach or win the Super Bowl. I never suggested otherwise. My point all along was that it's going to take more than a good defense to get the job done. A dominant defense is more than just good but at this point in their development, the Vikes don't have a dominant defense and as you said, they need to get better on offense.

To Fiesta's point: focusing on taking the defense from good to elite has it's merits but I think that's taking the tougher and less likely road to success and I say that because a team's that struggles to score has very little margin for error.


Well obviously I'm not going to sit here and say we're all set on offense. Who would?? Of course it needs to get better. But you said 1/3 of a team "simply isnt enough" when that is exactly what is happening right now (Atlanta). No less you followed that up by saying you dont see us contending for a while. So no, I'm not blowing it out of proportion. Atlanta is contending and they are good on one side of the ball. Who's to say we cant if we get this offense into the low-mid 20's in total offense at least?? I'd rather have this defense than Atlanta's offense if I had to choose one. How many games has Atlanta lost the past few years when they've put up 30+ points?? A lot. The defense is a championship caliber defense. Atlanta has the 25th ranked defense. If we can get up to the 25th or better ranked offense next year why couldnt we contend??

If Atlanta can do it there is no reason we cant. And I've said that before and I've yet to get a response. We have the QB, WR's and TE. It's not like we're the Browns and have none of the above. We need to fix a few areas, yeah. But it's not like this offense has 0 talent on it. And what a year to be looking for a RB. Build the OL through FA and the draft, keeping a few of our own and draft a RB and there is no reason this offense couldnt get into the low 20's at least.
This is a valid point, I think we have to improve our scoring average to at least the mid 20's to be a contender.If Dan Quinn who is a Defensive coach can get it done,Zimmer should be able to see what needs done also, although he inherited a team with immense talent on the offensive side of the ball with MattRyan , Julio jones, Devontae Freeman were already there. But then GM Thomas Dimitroff drafted some good O linemen, had to replace a Hall of Fame TE in Tony Gonzalez and brought in Free Agents like Sanu, and Center Alex Mack. Quinn asked to get speed on the defensive side and the GM delievered, theFalcons D did get much better as the seaon went along and I think this team will be very relevant in the future.